Category Archives: Politics

06.15.10
by

Liveblog from 6/15 SJ City Council Session

Lots of stuff on the agenda. The pertinent item tonight is 11.6: Administrative Hearing on an Appeal of the Planning Commission of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) for the Baseball Stadium in the Diridon/Arena Area.

Recommendation: Adopt a resolution to certify:
(A) The City Council has read and considered the Final Supplemental EIR; and
(B) The Final SEIR has been completed in accordance with the CEQA; and The Final SEIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City of San Jose; and The Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement shall transmit copies of the Final SEIR to the Applicant and to any other decision-making body of the City of San Jose for the project.

7:18 PM – After a few ceremonial items, Council is mercifully doing item 11.6 first.

7:24 PM – Public speaker time. Two appellants: Stand for San Jose and Marc Morris (who tool issue with the traffic analysis from the original ballpark EIR).

Attorney Michael Buskirk (Stand for San Jose) is explaining his client’s objections to the SEIR. Essentially, he’s saying that the parking analysis is flawed considering the lack of info for the 6-7 PM weeknight hour.

Marc Morris refers to the Sharks objections, which have been withdrawn. Citizens from Shasta-Hanchett are holding up blue signs in unison.

Thanks to gojohn10 for holding up the sign.

Susan Hammer and Michael Mulcahy are speaking in favor of the project.

Interestingly, at least two speakers want more traffic downtown because it’s an indicator that downtown is thriving.

Other neighborhood advocates are asking for a more comprehensive TPMP in conjunction with the ballpark. Some are concerned about emergency response due to drop in level of service to certain key intersections.

8:08 PM – Public comments over. Staff-council Q&A starts. Already covered ground regrding parking, BART and HSR development.

8:19 PM – Mayor Reed notes that since the A’s aren’t the applicant yet, there’s no one to negotiate a TPMP with. If/when the applicant is able to apply, there will be additional environmental review, which could take the form of an amendment or another supplemental EIR. Reed mentions the negotiating principles that have been set since last year.

Councilman Sam Liccardo puts forth a motion to deny the two appeals and certify the EIR, which was seconded. Vote coming after other council members’ comments.

8:38 PM – Unanimous approval. That’s a wrap. Time for a beer.

06.10.10
by

Let’s play a game of word replacement

Several Measure J postmortem articles have been flying around the internets over the last 24 hours. The tone of the newest article by SFGate’s John Wildermuth may have the most foreshadowing, since in five months we may be seeing déjà vu. Incredulous? Take a look at the following paragraphs:

But Mayor Gavin Newsom and other supporters of a proposed San Francisco home for the 49ers said the election was the expected triumph of the team’s $4 million-plus campaign effort, arguing that, in the mayor’s words, “the stadium plan is built on shaky economic ground.”

The city, meanwhile, is moving ahead with plans for a 69,000-seat stadium as part of the Hunters Point Shipyard redevelopment project but will hedge its bet with alternative plans to put housing and commercial development on the site if the 49ers flee to the South Bay.

“When the Santa Clara plan falls apart, San Francisco stands ready to welcome its 49ers home,” Newsom said. “But we will not wait forever.”

Now let’s take out the proper names.

But Mayor ___ and other supporters of a proposed ___ home for the ___ said the election was the expected triumph of the team’s $__ million-plus campaign effort, arguing that, in the mayor’s words, “the stadium plan is built on shaky economic ground.”

The city, meanwhile, is moving ahead with plans for a __-seat stadium as part of the ___ redevelopment project but will hedge its bet with alternative plans to put housing and commercial development on the site if the ___ flee to the South Bay.

“When the ___ plan falls apart, ___ stands ready to welcome its ___ home,” ___ said. “But we will not wait forever.”

See, SF and Oakland? You aren’t so different after all.

06.09.10
by

Measure J passes, what’s next?

Update 3:45 PM: The Trib’s Chris Metinko covers prospects for a Raiders move to Santa Clara. For now, the Raiders are dealing solely with Oakland/Alameda County. If you want to read into the situation, you can gather that the Raiders are – at least until their lease expires – in the catbird seat. They don’t have to commit to anyone for some time to come. Best of all, if the 49ers and Santa Clara come up short into terms of fundraising goals, the Raiders’ contribution could come in and salvage the project. However, you can bet that the Raiders will use that leverage to extract the very best deal possible. Only the NFL could make the Raiders come to the table sooner than they’d like.

Also: the 49ers have launched a new stadium website. It has a bunch of dead links and nothing but Flash-based content right now (sorry iPad users). It’s safe to assume that more content will be added in the coming months.

Today the world is a little different. The 49ers now have a stadium site, an approved EIR, and the approval of Santa Clara voters to build a stadium next their practice facility and Great America. On Gary Radnich’s radio show today, he and reporter Dan Dibley are having a lively debate about stadium options. Dibley pretty much nailed the sentiment on the skeptical side when he said that the NFL will not give the lion’s share of funding ($490 million) to a single team’s stadium. If the NFL holds the purse strings (which is not quite a given because of the ongoing CBA talks), it makes little sense for the league to throw $1 billion combined at two teams. The practical path is for Roger Goodell to urge the Raiders to move to Santa Clara along with the Niners. It would make the revenue projections much more reasonable.

One thing I’m curious about is if the NFL forces the issue, how will it determine revenue sharing for the second team? While the term sheet is written to make it appear that the Niners are taking the risk, in reality it’s the Stadium Authority that will have the most risk of revenue shortfalls.

ARTICLE 16. SECOND TEAM

Section 16.1 Second Team. 49ers Stadium Company will have the right to enter into a sublease with a second NFL team (“Second Team”), on terms and conditions consistent with and subject to the Stadium Lease to allow the Second Team to play its home games in the Stadium, subject to the following conditions:

(a) Repayment of Upfront Investment. Prior to the date that the Second Team plays its first home game in the Stadium, the Agency will receive an amount equal to the Agency Upfront Investment, which, as provided in Section 7.4 above, is estimated under current economic conditions to be approximately Twenty-Eight Million Dollars ($28,000,000).

(b) Repayment of Advance. 49ers Stadium Company will pay to the City or Agency prior to the date that the Second Team plays its first home game in the Stadium an amount equal to all the tax increment previously paid to 49ers Stadium Company as payment on the principal amount of the 49ers Agency Advance.

(c) Forgiveness of 49ers Agency Advance. From and after the date the Second Team plays its first home game in the Stadium, 49ers Stadium Company will have no further right to receive tax increment and will forgive all principal and interest of any outstanding 49ers Agency Advance.

(d) Additional Fixed Ground Rent. Commencing in the first year the Second Team plays its home games at the Stadium, the Stadium Authority will pay to the City, as additional Fixed Ground Rent (“Second Team Fixed Ground Rent”), One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per year. Beginning in the eleventh year of Second Team occupancy, the Second Team Fixed Ground Rent will equal One Million One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,100,000) per year, and such amount will, provided the Second Team continues to play its home games at the Stadium, increase One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) every five (5) years thereafter during the initial term of the Stadium Lease. For each extension of the Ground Lease, the Second Team Fixed Ground Rent payment will increase by Eighty Thousand Dollars ($80,000) for the term of the extension. As Second Team Fixed Ground Rent will be included in Fixed Ground Rent, such amount will be taken into account in calculating Reimbursable Expenses as provided in Section 12.1(i) above, and a portion thereof will be credited against Performance-Based Rent as provided in Section 4.3(b)(i) above.

(e) Reimbursement of Developer Fees. 49ers Stadium Company will reimburse the Agency for the share of development fees paid by the Agency to the City’s enterprise funds as of a result of the construction of the Stadium as provided in Section 6.4 above, estimated to be approximately One Million Seven Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,700,000).

(f) Capital Costs. 49ers Stadium Company will be responsible for all additional capital costs and additional Reimbursable Expenses required to accommodate a Second Team, except that the Capital Expenditure Reserve may be used to the extent consistent with the Capital Expenditure Plan. There would be no additional investment required by the City or Agency.

(g) Additional Capital Expenditure Reserve Deposit. As provided in Section 14.1(c) above, each year that a Second Team plays its home games in the Stadium, the Stadium Authority will fund, as an additional Stadium Operating Expense, the Second Team Capital Reserve Deposit in the initial amount of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000), escalated at the rate of three percent (3%) per year thereafter.

From this, we can see that both the 49ers and the Stadium Authority (by extension the City) have incredible incentive to lure the Raiders south. But as usual in the lead up, we have no idea what the actual revenues to the either team would be. What would the Raiders’ lease look like? Surely the 49ers, in getting the deal done, would win a controlling share of revenue. How attractive would the lesser share be for the Raiders? There has to be a sliding scale from which the Raiders would view a stadium-sharing situation in Santa Clara, and it’s expected that there’s a threshold that they wouldn’t cross, lest it be a bad deal for them. That’s where it would make sense that the NFL steps in to make the whole thing square for both teams. If history’s a guide, the Giants and Jets have a 50-50 split at the new Meadowlands stadium to open this fall, and the negotiations were particularly contentious. I would be surprised if Al Davis took being a tenant to a 30-year-old landlord easily. Then again, he doesn’t have many choices, does he?

06.06.10
by

A’s exercise 2011 Coliseum option

No drama here, as Eric Young of the SF Business Times reports the A’s decided to stay at the Coliseum through at least 2011 by exercising their year-to-year option in the stadium lease. Two additional yearly options remain in 2012 and 2013 before the lease runs out. Yet when asked, Lew Wolff focused instead on San Jose, a clear indicator of where he thinks the team’s future lies.

“They have been getting their ducks in a row,” said Lew Wolff, A’s managing general partner, said at the time. “I have to compliment them on what they are doing. They are spending money and making things happen,” said Wolff, who has said he is open to moving his team to San Jose.

It would seem as if things are coming together, wouldn’t it?

06.04.10
by

Obligatory Pre-Election 49ers Coverage

Not much new commentary here from me, I think we’ve already covered the Niners with sufficient depth. Our past posts on the Santa Clara Stadium situation:

More analysis comes from all over the place.

06.02.10
by

Sharks and City strike deal

It looks like something was in the works after all. Despite the Sharks’ objections to the SEIR’s findings and recommendations, they and the City of San Jose agreed on a future location for parking and possible office space (SJ Business Journal, SJ Mercury News).

The terms of the agreement are outlined in pages 68-90 of the June 15 City Council info packet. The section is called “THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED & RESTATED SAN JOSE ARENA MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT.” Interestingly, the text of the document points out that because the new parking garage would be an amendment to an existing agreement, the garage would not be considered a new project, and (my interpretation) thus would not require its own separate, new EIR.

The land for the garage is immediately north of HP Pavilion, on currently zoned industrial parcels housing the decades-old Milligan News educational books facility, a foundry, and two houses on N Montgomery St. Like the ballpark parcels, the garage parcels would be subject to negotiation between the current owners and the City, though the City could invoke eminent domain (yikes). San Jose Arena Management (Sharks/SVSE) would be ultimately responsible for the land acquisition and development costs. SJAM would also take in all revenues associated with operating the garage. The City would reciprocate by funding the completion of Autumn Parkway – with what funds is yet to be determined.

new_garage_sm“>

The key here is that the location is not particularly ideal for either the ballpark or the train station, as it’s over 1/3 mile away from either site (Area E above). A connector bridge over Montgomery Street would connect the new garage to the existing elevated parking lot, and a separate vehicle entrance/exit from the planned Autumn Parkway would be the way to get there.While the location isn’t terribly convenient for train/ballpark users, it does solve the issue of maintaining existing parking while a new garage is built. As a result of this deal, both of the published garage options in the existing EIR are now out of the running, though it’s possible and/or likely that they could be revisited as parking demands rise in the future.

What does this mean for the A’s? For now, it means there’s one less obstacle and 1,000+ spaces of additional parking in the area when a ballpark opens, though again it won’t be the most convenient location. In fact, some lots on the other side of CA-87 will be closer. I think we’re moving closer to the notion that the A’s will look to build their own parking garage on the ballpark site, also with 1,000 spaces give or take. The Nats already know what this looks like.

05.26.10
by

Three parties appeal EIR certification

Following last week’s certification, three parties have appealed the planning commission’s decision.

The San Jose Sharks, Stand for San Jose (a coalition backed by the San Francisco Giants) and a resident who lives near the stadium site allege that the report, which the commission approved last week, does not adequately analyze or disclose potential impacts from traffic and parking, among other issues.

Chances are that the City Council will move forward despite the appeals. It’ll be up to the various parties to see whether or not a lawsuit is filed. The important piece of news to come out of this is the date of the council’s hearing: June 15.

05.19.10
by

EIR Certified (San Jose)

Darryl Boyd is doing a brief presentation on the SEIR (“S” for supplemental) process. So far, letters have been submitted by the Shasta/Hanchett Park Neighborhood Association, the San Jose Sharks, and San Jose Giants. Staff recommends certification due to no new impacts after studying the modified project.

Now Dennis Korabiak is giving an overview of the project. Notes that there are 29,000 parking spaces in the downtown area.

So far, two commenters recommend not certifying the EIR, Eloy Wouters on the grounds that parking and traffic analyses are flawed, another because of fiscal responsibility concerns. A member of S/HNPA recommends the creation of a citizen oversight committee, similar to what was done with the arena. Another commenter recommends the 237/Zanker site as an alternative for the ballpark.

The lawyer from Stand for San Jose asserts that the traffic impact analysis for the weeknight 6-7 PM makes no conclusions and does not properly identify mitigation measures. Essentially this is a question of whether or not the SEIR properly states all of the impacts. Cites a couple of lawsuits in LA and Oakland.

A member of the Willow Glen Neighborhood Association is concerned about traffic along CA-87′ though he also says that the ballpark would be a huge economic impact for downtown and San Jose. He wants VTA to make a commitment to provide improved services in the area, based on the success of transit usage in SF.

Michael Mulcahy (Baseball San Jose, friend of the Wolffs) is giving his sales pitch.

Another commenter criticizes the large environmental impact, while the last commenter critiques the traffic study.

Dennis Korabiak summarizes, notes that the project will require a vote due to the land contribution. Council decision to place project on the ballot would occur in June. Commissioner Zito asks if the various mitigations that will be needed have been disclosed. Korabiak replies yes. Commissioner Kamkar asks if the A’s will be paying for the police and traffic enforcement. Answer is that it will have to be negotiated by the A’s and City, with recommendations provided by the Good Neighbor Committee.

Public hearing closed. Now the rest of the planning commission has questions.

PG&E – What happens? No intention to acquire and relocate the substation.

Staff clarifies that the project is not in the “fair analysis” realm, which is often used to create legal challenges for an EIR. I’m not sure if I’m interpreting this right, but it may be because no major new impacts have been identified, compared to the old EIR. If true, that’s huge. Staff also says that regardless of a day or night game situation, there will be enough parking throughout downtown – though I have to say this is a flawed argument given the broad and one-sided definition of what downtown is.

8:33 PM – Motion to certify by Zito. Makes a statement to clarify that certifying the EIR is not about being for or against the project, it’s about whether or not the document itself is complete. Commissioner Jensen seconds. Commissioner Platten will not support the motion but considers it close, thinks there may be a lawsuit. Commissioner Klein thinks all of this could have been done with an amendment instead if a SEIR.

8:38 PM – Vote taken. Motion passes 4-1 with two commissioners absent. See ya in June.

05.18.10
by

SJ EIR Certification Hearing Wednesday

It’s an important night tomorrow night, as the revised ballpark EIR will have its certification hearing. Should the document be certified, the City Council will take up when it expects to have the ballpark issue on the ballot. Of course, the closest date is the November election, so there’s no real drama there. I have heard that ballot language is already being tested.

The Merc’s Tracy Seipel covers some of the uncertainty regarding the final shape of the project. Key to this is the location of a new parking structure. Of the two new parking options, the one with the most traction is a garage on the main arena lot, adjacent to HP Pavilion. It’s not the most optimal site distance-wise from the ballpark site, but it is the site that creates the least upheaval thanks to it being city-owned land, not privately-owned land. Some area residents have also preferred this site because it would mean no garages in the area between the ballpark and the arena. I’m not sure that this is feasible long term, but it’s worth considering if only from an aesthetic standpoint. There has been some hubbub about the Sharks not liking a “no parking” option, which makes sense. They have an agreement with the city to have a certain number of spaces available for events, and a ballpark would encroach upon that.

The issue here is not whether a garage will be built, it’s a matter of where and by whom. While the ballpark is a big part of the Greater Downtown area, it’s only a part of a broader development plan. Depending on the final configuration and footprint of a ballpark, there may actually be room for some parking right next to it. A garage there could be financed any number of ways and would probably require its own EIR since it would change the project, but that’s a bridge to cross if it is ever reached.

Simply put, a garage next to the arena makes the most sense. It satisfies the Sharks/SVSE, some transit advocates, area residents, city requirements, and perhaps even the A’s (though they don’t have a voice). The thing is that A’s and Sharks ownership is tight, so it wouldn’t be beyond the Sharks to act as a proxy for a party that doesn’t officially have a voice yet, such as the A’s.

There will be a liveblog on Wednesday.

05.16.10
by

Trib takes Oakland to task

Guess we should’ve seen this coming. The Oakland Tribune’s Editorial page criticized Oakland’s approach towards retaining the A’s, in effect saying that the effort is too little and perhaps too late. The argument is summed up in a simple two sentence paragraph.

With so much at stake, the city should have jumped into the fray with San Jose much earlier and fought much harder to keep the A’s. Having monthly meetings doesn’t cut it.

Those of you who read this here blog frequently know that the writers here feel exactly the same way. Since December, we’ve been looking for something substantive, something that could approach in effort the work that has been done in San Jose and even Fremont. Sadly, the only report we’ve seen is basically a sales pitch to move the A’s to JLS in order to boost the city’s tax revenues and make area development more lucrative.

Don’t believe that last part? In the report, JLS and surrounding neighborhoods are divided into seven areas to gauge potential spillover effects from a ballpark. Area 7 is the Oak-to-Ninth (O29) site, still waiting for development by Signature Properties (the Ghielmettis). On page 57, a table shows that Area 7 would be 100% built out with a ballpark, 85% without. When I read that, I did some quick math and estimated that the difference has to be some $100-200 million. You can guess which business interests helped bankroll the report.